Presently
before the Court are Defendant Staten's Objections to the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 59).
After an independent and de novo review of the
entire record, the undersigned concurs with the March 7,
2017, Report and Recommendation, (doc. 57). Accordingly, the
Court OVERRULES Defendant's Objections
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, as supplemented herein, as the opinion of
the Court.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff
filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
contending that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to
his serious needs when they refused to provide him with
antiviral medication to treat his Human Immunodeficiency
Virus ("HIV"). (Doc. 1.) The Court conducted the
requisite frivolity review, (doc. 14), and Defendants then
filed Motions to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motions for
Summary Judgment, (docs. 34, 36), to which Plaintiff filed a
Response, (doc. 42). Subsequently, the Court invited
supplemental briefing as to the issue of Plaintiff s
exhaustion of administrative remedies. (Doc. 47.) Defendants
filed supplemental memorandums and Plaintiff filed a
Response, to which Defendants Replied. (Docs. 48-50, 52, 54.)
On March 7, 2017, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
Court deny Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, grant
Defendants' Nevil and Driggers' Motions for Summary
Judgment, and deny Defendant Staten's Motion for Summary
Judgment. (Doc. 57.)

DISCUSSION

Defendant
Staten filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's
recommendation that the Court deny Defendant Staten's
Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 59.) Defendant Staten
contends that: 1) there is insufficient evidence to establish
that Defendant Staten's conduct resulted in injury to
Plaintiff; 2) there is insufficient evidence to establish
that Defendant Staten deliberately disregarded a serious
medical need; and 3) Plaintiff was required to exhaust his
administrative remedies. (Id at pp. 3-10.) The Court
addresses each of these Objections in turn.

I.
Whether Defendant Staten's Conduct Resulted in Injury to
Plaintiff

Defendant
Staten objects to the Magistrate Judge's finding that, at
least "at this stage of the litigation, it appears that
Plaintiff was directly injured by [Defendant Staten's]
failure to provide Plaintiff with his necessary antiviral
medication." (Doc. 57, p. 20; Doc. 59, p. 3.) Defendant
Staten argues that Plaintiff fails to provide sufficient
"verifying medical evidence" to support his claims
that his viral load increased and that he suffered night
sweats, vomiting, and diarrhea. (Doc. 59, p. 3.)

However,
as the Magistrate Judge noted, Plaintiff did in fact provide
a copy of his medical history to support his allegations.
(Doc. 57, p. 20; Doc. 42-3, p. 20.) In his medical report,
medical staff noted that Plaintiff was "without his HIV
medications for 25 days" and reported "night sweats
. . . vomiting at night that is mostly yellowish in content,
nonbilious and nonbloody . . . [and] occasional watery
diarrhea." (Doc. 42-3, p. 20.) Furthermore, this medical
history report includes Plaintiffs viral load of 341 at the
time the exam was conducted. (Id.) Plaintiffs blood
results from January 27, 2015 reveal that his prior viral
load-when he was still regularly taking his antiviral
medication-was less than 20. (Doc. 36-2, p. 32.) Accordingly,
the Magistrate Judge did not err in concluding that the
record contained sufficient evidence to create a question of
fact as to whether Plaintiff was injured as a result of
Defendant Staten's conduct.

Defendant
further argues that this medical history was "made in
January 2016, eleven months after the events at
issue in this lawsuit" and thus, not appropriate
evidence linking Plaintiffs injury to the
delay.[1](Doc. 59, p. 4 (emphasis in original).) It
is true that the report was printed in January of 2016 and
possibly provided in conjunction with a medical visit that
also occurred in January of 2016. However, the section upon
which the Magistrate Judge relied is directly labeled
"PMHx" or Past Medical History. Family Medicine
Reference, http://www.fammedref.org/glossary (last visited
Mar. 20, 2017). Furthermore, although undated, the notes
indicate that the relevant entry was made soon after the
alleged events giving rise to this lawsuit. Specifically, the
medical notes state that Plaintiff was present at the clinic
for "re-enrollment and treatment evaluation. He was
transferred to Bulloch County for court hearings." (Doc.
42-3, p. 20.) Thus, the Magistrate Judge did not err in
relying on this past medical history.

Defendant
Staten also argues that the Magistrate Judge erred in
determining that there is an issue of fact as to whether
Defendant Staten deliberately disregarded Plaintiffs serious
medical need. (Doc. 59, p. 8.) Specifically, Defendant takes
issue with the Magistrate Judge's inference that
Defendant Staten did not approve Plaintiffs medication
because it was too expensive or because Plaintiff would be
transferred back to state custody. (Id) However,
Defendant's Objections only highlight what the Magistrate
Judge ultimately determined, that the record contains
sufficient evidence to create a dispute of material fact as
to whether Defendant Staten acted with more than gross
negligence in denying Plaintiffs medication. Defendant
Staten's reason for the delay is but one prong of the
gross negligence analysis. As the record stands, there is a
dispute of material fact as to whether Defendant Staten's
reason for denying Plaintiff his antiviral medication was due
to cost, transfer back to state custody, or something else
altogether. Accordingly, the Court cannot decide as a matter
of law that Defendant Staten did not act with more than gross
negligence in denying Plaintiff medical treatment.

Defendant
Staten simply reiterates his arguments regarding Plaintiffs
exhaustion of administrative remedies previously presented in
his Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion for
Summary Judgment, and his supplemental memorandums. The
Magistrate Judge adequately addressed ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.